Europe unlikely to buy Russian gas from Turkish stream, while Turkey might depend on Russian gas.

Europe unlikely to buy Russian gas from Turkish stream, while Turkey might depend on Russian gas. (Taz).

Likelihood of Russian gas supplies to Europe by Turkish stream pipeline is remote given the current state of play in EU- Russia relations, Constantine Levoyannis, head of the Greek Energy Forum's Brussels branch told Trend by email on Oct. 12.

This week an intergovernmental agreement on the Turkish Stream pipeline has been signed in Istanbul in the presence of both presidents. The agreement envisages the construction of two pipeline strings, each with a capacity of 15.75 billion cubic meters.

The first string will supply gas directly to Turkey, while the second is to be used to deliver gas to European countries through Turkey.

Levoyannis noted that the first stream supplying Turkish gas demand should come as no surprise.
“It is likely to happen. It makes commercial sense and the demand is there,” he said.

On the other hand, the expert noted that the likelihood of the second string to Europe materializing is remote, given the current state of play in EU Russia relations, adding that a top priority for the EU is the Southern Gas Corridor.

“To me the second announcement bears more of a political message towards the EU,” Levoyannis said.


Within the negotiation on the Turkish Stream this week, the parties also agreed on a mechanism by which to provide a discount on Russian gas for Turkey.

The agreement on gas price discount is interesting news, Levoyannis said.
“This could have a significant macroeconomic impact - particularly on gas on gas competition,” he noted. Hmmm....I'm sure Iran won't be happy with this.

Senior Iranian MP: Russian Warships in Offensive Arrangement for Syrian War.

Senior Iranian MP: Russian Warships in Offensive Arrangement for Syrian War.(Fars).

Russian warships in the Mediterranean are on the offensive waiting for the slightest aggressive move by the US against Syria, a senior Iranian legislator said.

"Practically, the Russians have lost their bases in the region and the only point that they have kept in the Middle-East is Syria. Therefore, Russians will not repeat their previous mistakes and will not allow the Americans to take control of their allies in the region," Chairman of the parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Alaeddin Boroujerdi said in an interview with Iran-based Arabic-language al-Alam news channel Sunday night.

"The Russian warships have taken offensive arrangement to take action to defend their defined interests in the Middle-East," he added.

Boroujerdi warned about the unpredictable consequences of war against Syria, and said if the US attacks Syria, Russian President Vladimir Putin will enter the scene and Syrians will attack Israel; and then the US congress may show reaction and impeach Obama.

In relevant remarks earlier this month, another prominent Iranian lawmaker said that Barack Obama is trying to distance himself from the expenses of a military strike on Damascus by asking the Congress to make the relevant decision.

“The US is now facing the problem of the expenses it has to pay in case of attacking Syria …, hence it seems that Obama is looking for a decent way to escape this attack,” member of the parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Ibrahim Ebrahim Aqamohammadi said, pointing to the US president’s asking the Congress to make a decision in this regard.

He underlined that the US Republicans are warmongers and they want Obama’s annihilation, hence they persuade the US president to attack Syria in order to make him pay for the expenses of such attack.

“The US intended to intervene in Syria in a blatant and bullying manner as it did in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya … but the world’s situation has changed now,” Aqamohammadi said.

Former Israeli Nat Sec Council dir Uzi Arad : "Pres Obama has bitten off more than he could chew."

Former Israeli National Security Council director Uzi Arad : "President Barack H. Obama has bitten off more than he could chew."HT: INN.

Former National Security Council director Uzi Arad said Sunday that he was not sure an attack on Bashar al-Assad's forces would be successful, or a good idea altogether.

Speaking Sunday at the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism's (ICT) World Summit on Counter-Terrorism, taking place at the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), Arad said that President Barack H. Obama had bitten off more than he could chew, and that the best thing he could do now was extricate himself from the corner he had backed himself into with as much dignity as possible.

“Syria is not a signatory to international conventions against the use of chemical weapons,” said Arad, so the legal basis for intervention by the West was somewhat shoddy. “You cannot say that Assad violated an international convention Syria is not signed onto.” Assad, therefore, sees no reason not to use such weapons against anyone he feels threatens his rule.

As a result, Arad said, there is a real possibility that any country that takes on Assad may find itself mired in a very ugly situation. “I find it hard to believe that intervention will bring about a substantially better situation,” he said. “The best thing now would be for Obama to carefully bring the crisis to an end, without creating negative ramifications in the region and the world, whether before or after an attack,” Arad added.

US plans for 3 days of intensive attacks on Syria: Report.

US plans for 3 days of intensive attacks on Syria: Report. (HD).

The Pentagon is readying more intense and longer attacks on Syria than originally planned, set to last three days, the Los Angeles Times reported Sunday.

War planners now aim to unleash a heavy barrage of missile strikes to be followed swiftly by additional attacks on targets that may have been missed or remain standing after the initial launch, the Times cited officials as saying.

Two US officers told the newspaper that the White House has asked for an expanded target list to include "many more" than the initial list of around 50 targets.

The move is part of an effort to obtain additional firepower to damage Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's dispersed forces. Pentagon planners are now considering using Air Force bombers, as well as five US missile destroyers currently patrolling the eastern Mediterranean Sea, to launch cruise missiles and air-to-surface missiles from far out of range of Syrian air defenses, according to the report.

The USS Nimitz aircraft carrier strike group with one cruiser and three destroyers positioned in the Read Sea can also fire cruise missiles at Syria.

"There will be several volleys and an assessment after each volley, but all within 72 hours and a clear indication when we are done," an officer familiar with the planning told the Times.

The intensified military planning comes as President Barack Obama prepares to personally make his case to the American people and further press reluctant lawmakers on the need for action after Assad allegedly used chemical weapons on his own people last month.

Obama is scheduled to tape interviews Monday with anchors of the three major broadcast networks, as well as with PBS, CNN and Fox News.

The interviews, to air that night, will precede Obama's address to the nation Tuesday ahead of an expected full Senate vote.

The president favors a limited attack with only a reduced number of warplanes to drop bombs over Syria, according to the Times.

Amid doubts that a limited US offensive would sufficiently hamper Assad's military capabilities, one officer told the newspaper that the planned operation would amount to a "show of force" over several days that would not fundamentally change the situation on the ground.

The planned US strike "will not strategically impact the current situation in the war, which the Syrians have well in hand, though fighting could go on for another two years," another US officer said.


Hmmm.....Kerry on 04 September: US President Barack Obama is not asking the United States to go to war but to authorise him to “degrade and deter” Syria’s capability to use chemical weapons, US Secretary of State John Kerry said on Tuesday.

Reid faces double-digit defections on Syria strike measure.

Reid faces double-digit defections on Syria strike measure.HT: TheHill.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is bracing for double-digit defections in the Democratic caucus on the resolution authorizing military strikes on Syria, which will get a vote this coming week.

The Syria resolution presents Reid with one of the biggest tests of his leadership this Congress and the outcome has significant effects for President Obama’s domestic and foreign policy agendas.

Failure of the measure in the Democratic-controlled upper chamber could spur House Republicans to pick a fight with the weakened president over the budget, as well as embolden the regimes of Iran and North Korea.

“The president’s team has really given him a tough one this time but, as always, when the president asks him to do something, Sen. Reid quickly tries to get it done,” said Jim Manley, a former senior advisor to Reid.

With already four Democratic senators saying they will likely oppose the measure, the pressure is building on Reid to reach out across the aisle.

“If this vote were to fail, it will have huge consequences not only for the president’s domestic policy but also his foreign policy and for the people of Syria. This is about as high stakes as you can get,” Manley added. “How’s Iran and North Korea going to react to a defeat? How are House Republicans going to deal with the debt limit?”

“The goal is not to keep the caucus together, it’s to pass this resolution,” said a senior Senate Democratic aide. “I think we’ll lose a fair number of Democrats. We’ll probably lose double-digits Democrats.”

Liberal grassroots activists are ratcheting up the pressure on Democratic senators.

“I would hope and expect to see opposition build among Senate Democrats and House Democrats in the next few days,” said Anna Galland, executive director of MoveOn.org Civic Action.

Galland said members of MoveOn.org would hold Democratic lawmakers accountable for their vote in future elections.

“It is a consequential vote for the future and our members will look back at this vote when trying to figure out whom to vote for in future elections,” she said.

She said MoveOn.org polled its entire membership before taking a position against the resolution.

Reid remains confident he will be able to pass the controversial measure by relying on Republican votes to overcome the 60-vote threshold required. Read the full story here.

‘Syria, Iran, Hezbollah set up situation room’.

‘Syria, Iran, Hezbollah set up situation room’.(TOI).

Iran, Syria and Hezbollah have set up a joint situation room in preparation for a potential US-led strike in Syria, with Hezbollah mobilizing “tens of thousands” of fighters for the occasion.

The military operations coordination between the three is meant to plan for the monitoring of targets and organizing of retaliation, the Lebanese Daily Star reported Friday, citing senior Lebanese political and diplomatic sources.

“Iran, Syria and Hezbollah don’t have a clear picture about what Americans have planned,” said one diplomat,“but [they] too are prepared for various scenarios.”

Political sources said Hezbollah put “tens of thousands” of fighters and reservists on alert in anticipation of a US strike.“Everyone in Hezbollah who has been trained to use weapons has been put on high alert,” one political source told the Lebanese daily. “The party is ready for all eventualities.”

Iran and Hezbollah have repeatedly indicated that they would back Syria’s Bashar Assad regime in the event of a strike in response to the reported use of chemical weapons in a Damascus suburb on August 

21, which the US says killed 1,429 people.

Lebanese officials cited in the Daily Star report warned that Iran and Hezbollah see the targeting of Syrian army posts, airfields and weapons depots as a strategic threat to their interests and of course to Assad, which would give them a reason to intervene. But the officials indicated that they were likely to do so only if the US strike seriously threatened the regime’s rule.

But Syria too has a bank of targets, according to the Lebanese report, having already threatened to strike Israel, Turkey and Jordan in retaliation for any attack.

Meanwhile, the US is also preparing for an expansion of targets should the decision to carry out an attack come through. On Friday, it was reported that US President Barack Obama instructed the Pentagon to add Syrian sites to its target list, with the order coming in response to intelligence indications that the Syrian government has moved troops and equipment used to employ chemical weapons.

The US is considering employing Air Force bombers in addition to ship-launched cruise missiles.Hmmm.....'Limited strike'....yeah whatevah.

Obama: As Commander-in-Chief I've decided we should attack Syria.

Obama: As Commander-in-Chief I've decided we should attack Syria. HT: Investor's Business Daily.

Almost three weeks ago in Syria, more than 1,000 innocent people — including hundreds of children — were murdered in the worst chemical weapons attack of the 21st century. And the United States has presented a powerful case to the world that the Syrian government was responsible for this horrific attack on its own people.

This was not only a direct attack on human dignity; it is a serious threat to our national security.

There’s a reason governments representing 98 percent of the world’s people have agreed to ban the use of chemical weapons. Not only because they cause death and destruction in the most indiscriminate and inhumane way possible — but because they can also fall into the hands of terrorist groups who wish to do us harm.

That’s why, last weekend, I announced that, as Commander in Chief, I decided that the United States should take military action against the Syrian regime. This is not a decision I made lightly. Deciding to use military force is the most solemn decision we can make as a nation.

As the leader of the world’s oldest Constitutional democracy, I also know that our country will be stronger if we act together, and our actions will be more effective. That’s why I asked Members of Congress to debate this issue and vote on authorizing the use of force.

What we’re talking about is not an open-ended intervention. This would not be another Iraq or Afghanistan. There would be no American boots on the ground. Any action we take would be limited, both in time and scope — designed to deter the Syrian government from gassing its own people again and degrade its ability to do so.

I know that the American people are weary after a decade of war, even as the war in Iraq has ended, and the war in Afghanistan is winding down. That’s why we’re not putting our troops in the middle of somebody else’s war. Hmmm..........'My Military',  Obama Cuts Hazard Pay for Soldiers Serving in Harm’s Way Read the full story here.

Putin - Russia will help Syria in case of external aggression

Putin - Russia will help Syria in case of external aggression.(ItarTass).

The United States, Turkey, Canada, France, Saudi Arabia and Britain back the strike on Syria at the G20 summit, Russian President Vladimir Putin said.

Speaking at a final press conference, Putin said Russia, China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, South Africa and Italy came against military actions in Syria.

The U.N. secretary-general and Pope Francis also came against the use of force against Syria, the president said, adding that the population in these Western countries were against the military operation in Syria.

Putin had spoken to President Barack Obama for about thirty minutes but neither of them had changed his positions as a result of the meeting.

“This was a meaty and fruitful conversation and it took place in a friendly atmosphere but each of us remained clinging to old positions as a the result,” he said.

Putin noted that despite disagreements, he and President Obama understood each other’s arguments. “We listen to them and try to analyze,” Putin said.

The Russian leader said that he and his U.S. counterpart had agreed on ‘some options’ of a peaceful settlement of the Syrian problem. The Russian Foreign Ministry and the U.S. State Department will discuss the theme soon.

He indicated that the problem of the former CIA technology analyst Edward Snowden, whom Russia had granted asylum, was not discussed at the meeting.

Russian President Vladimir Putin also said he had spoken to President Barack Obama for about thirty minutes but neither of them had changed his stance.

At the same time, Vladimir Putin said Russia will help Syria in case of external aggression,

“Will we help Syria? We will,” the Russian leader said recalling that Russia had already been helping Syria through arms supplies and economic and humanitarian cooperation, including provision of humanitarian aid.

In reply to the question what other country in the world may theoretically be subjected to aggression similar to that Syria is facing, Putin said, “I do not want to think that any other country will be subjected to any external aggression.”

A military action against Syria will have a highly deplorable impact on international security at large, Putin emphasized.

He said he was surprised to see that ever more participants in the summit, including the leader of India, Brazil, the South African Republic, and Indonesia were speaking vehemently against a possible military operation in Syria.

Putin cited the words of the South African President, Jacob Zuma, who said many countries were feeling unprotected against such actions undertaken by stronger countries.

“Given the conditions as they, how would you convince the North Koreans, for example, to give up their nuclear program,” he said. “Just tell them to put everything into storage today and they’ll be pulled to bits tomorrow.”

He underlined the presence of only one method for maintaining stability – “an unconditional observance of international law norms.”

Infographic: Picturing Where Congress Stands On Syria.

Infographic: Picturing Where Congress Stands On Syria.HT: Wapo.


As WaPo illustrates in the great infographic below, lawmakers appear to be tentatively dividing into four camps over military action in Syria.

Each dot represents a lawmaker who has indicated how he or she might vote, and the sentiment of the quote is mapped across the four categories.

Rebel leaders in Syria were Muslim advisors to Obama admin.

Rebel leaders in Syria were Muslim advisors to Obama admin.HT: Ibloga.

Bill Gertz’s Geostrategy Direct:

WASHINGTON — The leaders of the Sunni revolt in Syria included Saudi-financed advisers of the United States, a report said.

The Gloria Center asserted that Muslim advisers to the administration of President Barack Obama defected and became leading members of the Sunni revolt in Syria.

In a report titled “Blind to Terror: The U.S. Goverment’s Disastrous Muslim Outreach Efforts and the Impact on U.S. Mideast Policy,” author Patrick Poole identified a handful of Muslim advisers to the Defense Department, U.S. military and FBI now linked to Syrian rebel militias inspired by Al Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood.

"Among the leaders of the Islamic groups favored by the U.S. government are even wanted international war criminals," the report said.

Dated June 10, the report cited Louay Safi, who for years advised the Pentagon on Islamic affairs, including the approval of chaplains. In August 2011, after a meeting at the White House, Safi appeared in Turkey as a leader of the rebel Syrian National Council. The report said Safi, now based in Qatar, has become the council’s political director.

The report said the Pentagon made Safi into an adviser despite a federal investigation that linked him to financing such groups as Palestinian Islamic Jihad, deemed a terrorist organization by the State Department. In 2005, Safi was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of Jihad leader Sami Arian.

"Safi’s involvement with the Pentagon became an issue following the Fort Hood attacks, when 13 members of Congress sent a letter to Defense Secretary Gates complaining that not only was Safi endorsing Muslim chaplains for the Defense Department on behalf of ISNA, but also teaching classes on the ‘Theology of Islam’ to troops departing for Afghanistan at Fort Hood and Fort Bliss under a subcontract with the Naval Postgraduate School," the report said.

Another Syrian opposition leader who began as an Islamist lobbyist in the United States was identified as Ghassan Hitto, a businessman from Dallas. In March 2013, Hitto, supported by the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood and aligned with Qatar, was selected interim prime minister of the Sunni revolt against Assad.

Poole, a counter-insurgency consultant, also said the administration was courting those indicted on war crimes by the International Criminal Court. Nafie Al Nafie, invited by the State Department in May 2012, has been charged with planning the mass killing of civilians in Sudan’s Nuba mountains and Darfour province. The State Department invitation was canceled when more than 100 Holocaust scholars urged Obama to intervene.

A leading Muslim group that advises the administration on outreach has been headed by a Sudanese accused of crimes. Abu Bakar Al Shingieta, head of the American Muslims for Constructive Engagement, was the adviser to Sudanese President Omar Bashir during the regime’s massacre of Christians in the south.

"As these examples demonstrate, the U.S. government’s ignoring the terrorist support of its Muslim outreach partners has had a slippery-slope effect in its foreign policy by inviting members of terrorist groups and war criminals to Washington, D.C. for ‘dialogue,’" the report said.

Safi was born in Damascus where he received his early education. He moved to the United States in the early eighties where he received his B.Sc. in civil engineering, and later a M.A. and a Ph.D. in Political Science from Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan. He has written books on social and political development, modernization, democracy, human rights, and Islam and the Middle East.

Safi has served as Executive Director and Director of Research for the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), editor of the Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, and President of the Association of Muslim Social Scientists (1999–2003). He has also taught at Wayne State University inDetroit, Michigan, the International Islamic University in Malaysia and George Washington University in Washington, DC.

ANY QUESTIONS?????

Related:

EXCLUSIVE: U.S. Muslim Brotherhood Leader Central Figure In Newly Formed Syrian Opposition Council

The Dallas Morning News Discovers Louay Safi Is Syrian Opposition Leader; We Told You About It Two years Ago

WhoDunneIt? Collected Chemical Weapon Posts.

WhoDunneIt? Collected Chemical Weapon Posts.HT: BrownMosesBlog.


Interviews with chemical weapons specialists
A Chemical Weapon Specialist's Thoughts On The UN Visit To Syria
Three Chemical Weapon Specialist Answer Questions About Chemical Weapons In Syria
Chemical Weapon Specialists Talk Sarin, Saraqeb, and Khan Al-Assal - Part 1
Chemical Weapon Specialists Talk Sarin, Saraqeb, and Khan Al-Assal - Part 2

Damascus August 21st Attack
Are These The Munitions Used In Today's Alleged Chemical Weapon Attack?
More Videos Emerge Of Chemical Attack Linked Mystery Munitions
Claims Of Opposition DIY Weapons Used In This Week's Alleged Chemical Attack
Finding The Exact Location Of An Alleged Chemical Munition, And What It Could Mean
Were The UN Inspectors Examining A Chemical Weapon In Medmah Al Sham?

The White Grenades
Links Between Alleged Chemical Attacks In Saraqeb, Idlib, and Sheikh Maghsoud, Aleppo
Jabhat Al-Nusra Photographed With "Chemical Weapons"
Devices Linked To Alleged Chemical Weapon Attacks Captured By The Syrian Opposition
More On The Gas Grenades Linked To Chemical Weapon Attacks In Syria
The Hunt For Chemical Weapon Attack Linked Gas Grenades In Syria

Saraqeb
Video Of An Unknown Object Reportedly Dropped From A Helicopter During The Alleged Chemical Attack In Saraqeb, Idlib
Was The Attack In Saraqeb Chemical Weapons, Or Something Else?

Other
Comments On The Use Of Chemical Weapons In Syria
A Great Example Of How Not To Write About Chemical Weapons And Arms In Syria
DIY Weapon Linked To Alleged Chemical Weapon Attack in Adra, Damascus
Video Claims To Show A Chemical Bomb Dropped On Al-Bab
This Is Not A Chemical Weapon

Majority of Turks , Europe and U.S. against Syria intervention: Survey.

Majority of Turks against Syria intervention: Survey.(HD).

A majority of Turks disapprove of any potential military intervention in Syria, much like their European and American counterparts, a survey has revealed.

In Turkey, 72 percent of respondents to the Transatlantic Trends 2013 survey, which was conducted by the German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF), said their country should stay out of Syria, up 15 percentage points from last year, while only 21 percent – down 11 percentage points – favored intervention.

The respondents were told that there had recently been discussion about intervening in Syria, where the government has been using military force to suppress an opposition movement. They were then asked whether their government should stay out completely or intervene.

Apart from Turkey, 11 European Union member states were surveyed: France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, as well as the United States. Polling was conducted between June 3 and June 27.

In the U.S., a two-thirds majority, 62 percent, up 7 percentage points from 2012, along with nearly three-fourths of respondents in Europe, 72 percent, up 13 percentage points from 2012, preferred to stay out.

Only one-in-three respondents in the United States, 30 percent, down 5 percentage points from 2012, and even fewer in Europe, 22 percent, down 10 percentage points from 2012, felt their countries ought to intervene in Syria.

In a separate question about recent developments in North Africa and the Middle East, respondents to the survey were asked to choose between two propositions: “stability is more important even if it means accepting non-democratic governments” and “democracy is more important even if it leads to a period of instability.” A majority in Europe, 58 percent, and a plurality in the United States, 47 percent, preferred democracy over stability.

A majority of Turkish respondents, 57 percent, preferred democracy in North Africa and the Middle East, 25 percent said they preferred stability, while 18 percent said they did not know or refused to answer.

Keep your eye on 'Pipelineistan'.

Keep your eye on 'Pipelineistan'. HT: RussiaToday.

By now the different, sometimes converging, agendas of all those who want war on Syria are crystal clear. Essentially, it’s ‘the road to Damascus ends up in Tehran’.

The War Party in Washington, Israel and the House of Saud all know that new Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s success depends on easing the sanctions and revitalizing the Iranian economy. Tomahawks falling over Syria will virtually obliterate his push for a civilized dialogue between Iran and the US; the ultra-conservatives in Tehran will inevitably regain the upper hand.

So the Obama doctrine, on purpose, is also about bombing any possibility of meaningful dialogue with Tehran. The proof is that Obama eagerly listens to rabid Israeli-firsters such as Dennis Ross, now with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) think tank. Ross argues that bombing will reinforce the US’s “credibility” – as in threatening to go medieval further on down the road to prevent Iran from acquiring those evil, non-existent nuclear weapons.

And then, of course, there’s Pipelineistan – the elephant in the Syria frenzy room. There’s a lot of natural gas in the Eastern Mediterranean near the Syrian and Lebanese shorelines – arguably 90 percent more than in Israel. So Syria is a great prize in itself – on the road to become a natural gas competitor to Qatar.

Add to it the possibility of completion – post-war – of the $10 billion Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline. Privileged customers: Western Europe. Soon Qatar was being blocked on two fronts; by the House of Saud (who vetoed a pipeline traversing Saudi Arabia) and by the pipeline traversing Syria.

Thus the alliance with the US (and a privileged partnership with Exxon-Mobil), dependent on destroying any moves towards an Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline, to the benefit of a Qatar-Syria-Turkey pipeline feeding European natural gas customers. For the US, there’s the extra incentive that such a pipeline would dent Gazprom’s hold over the European gas market.

None of that, of course, will be discussed at the G20; the Obama doctrine won’t allow it. Quite predictable, when international relations are prey to a hubristic superpower that still answers geopolitical challenges with gunboat diplomacy.

Related: NATO’s Energy Security Strategy: Break Russia’s control over European gas markets.

Is The United States Going To Go To War With Syria Over A Natural Gas Pipeline?

Is The United States Going To Go To War With Syria Over A Natural Gas Pipeline?

Is The United States Going To Go To War With Syria Over A Natural Gas Pipeline?HT: The Economic Collapse Blog.

Why has the little nation of Qatar spent 3 billion dollars to support the rebels in Syria? Could it be because Qatar is the largest exporter of liquid natural gas in the world and Assad won't let them build a natural gas pipeline through Syria? Of course. Qatar wants to install a puppet regime in Syria that will allow them to build a pipeline which will enable them to sell lots and lots of natural gas to Europe. Why is Saudi Arabia spending huge amounts of money to help the rebels and why has Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan been "jetting from covert command centers near the Syrian front lines to the Élysée Palace in Paris and the Kremlin in Moscow, seeking to undermine the Assad regime"? Well, it turns out that Saudi Arabia intends to install their own puppet government in Syria which will allow the Saudis to control the flow of energy through the region. On the other side, Russia very much prefers the Assad regime for a whole bunch of reasons. One of those reasons is that Assad is helping to block the flow of natural gas out of the Persian Gulf into Europe, thus ensuring higher profits for Gazprom. Now the United States is getting directly involved in the conflict. If the U.S. is successful in getting rid of the Assad regime, it will be good for either the Saudis or Qatar (and possibly for both), and it will be really bad for Russia. This is a strategic geopolitical conflict about natural resources, religion and money, and it really has nothing to do with chemical weapons at all.
It has been common knowledge that Qatar has desperately wanted to construct a natural gas pipeline that will enable it to get natural gas to Europe for a very long time. The following is an excerpt from an article from 2009...

Qatar has proposed a gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey in a sign the emirate is considering a further expansion of exports from the world's biggest gasfield after it finishes an ambitious programme to more than double its capacity to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG).
"We are eager to have a gas pipeline from Qatar to Turkey," Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the ruler of Qatar, said last week, following talks with the Turkish president Abdullah Gul and the prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the western Turkish resort town of Bodrum. "We discussed this matter in the framework of co-operation in the field of energy. In this regard, a working group will be set up that will come up with concrete results in the shortest possible time," he said, according to Turkey's Anatolia news agency.
Other reports in the Turkish press said the two states were exploring the possibility of Qatar supplying gas to the strategic Nabucco pipeline project, which would transport Central Asian and Middle Eastern gas to Europe, bypassing Russia. A Qatar-to-Turkey pipeline might hook up with Nabucco at its proposed starting point in eastern Turkey. Last month, Mr Erdogan and the prime ministers of four European countries signed a transit agreement for Nabucco, clearing the way for a final investment decision next year on the EU-backed project to reduce European dependence on Russian gas.
"For this aim, I think a gas pipeline between Turkey and Qatar would solve the issue once and for all," Mr Erdogan added, according to reports in several newspapers. The reports said two different routes for such a pipeline were possible. One would lead from Qatar through Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq to Turkey. The other would go through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey. It was not clear whether the second option would be connected to the Pan-Arab pipeline, carrying Egyptian gas through Jordan to Syria. That pipeline, which is due to be extended to Turkey, has also been proposed as a source of gas for Nabucco.
Based on production from the massive North Field in the Gulf, Qatar has established a commanding position as the world's leading LNG exporter. It is consolidating that through a construction programme aimed at increasing its annual LNG production capacity to 77 million tonnes by the end of next year, from 31 million tonnes last year. However, in 2005, the emirate placed a moratorium on plans for further development of the North Field in order to conduct a reservoir study.

As you just read, there were two proposed routes for the pipeline. Unfortunately for Qatar, Saudi Arabia said no to the first route and Syria said no to the second route. The following is from an absolutely outstanding article in the Guardian...

In 2009 - the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria - Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter's North field, contiguous with Iran's South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets - albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad's rationale was "to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas."
Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012 - just as Syria's civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo - and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines.
The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a "direct slap in the face" to Qatar's plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that "whatever regime comes after" Assad, it will be "completely" in Saudi Arabia's hands and will "not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports", according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action.

If Qatar is able to get natural gas flowing into Europe, that will be a significant blow to Russia. So the conflict in Syria is actually much more about a pipeline than it is about the future of the Syrian people. In a recent article, Paul McGuire summarized things quite nicely...

The Nabucco Agreement was signed by a handful of European nations and Turkey back in 2009. It was an agreement to run a natural gas pipeline across Turkey into Austria, bypassing Russia again with Qatar in the mix as a supplier to a feeder pipeline via the proposed Arab pipeline from Libya to Egypt to Nabucco (is the picture getting clearer?). The problem with all of this is that a Russian backed Syria stands in the way.

Qatar would love to sell its LNG to the EU and the hot Mediterranean markets. The problem for Qatar in achieving this is Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have already said "NO" to an overland pipe cutting across the Land of Saud. The only solution for Qatar if it wants to sell its oil is to cut a deal with the U.S.

Recently Exxon Mobile and Qatar Petroleum International have made a $10 Billion deal that allows Exxon Mobile to sell natural gas through a port in Texas to the UK and Mediterranean markets. Qatar stands to make a lot of money and the only thing standing in the way of their aspirations is Syria.

The US plays into this in that it has vast wells of natural gas, in fact the largest known supply in the world. There is a reason why natural gas prices have been suppressed for so long in the US. This is to set the stage for US involvement in the Natural Gas market in Europe while smashing the monopoly that the Russians have enjoyed for so long. What appears to be a conflict with Syria is really a conflict between the U.S. and Russia!

The main cities of turmoil and conflict in Syria right now are Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo. These are the same cities that the proposed gas pipelines happen to run through. Qatar is the biggest financier of the Syrian uprising, having spent over $3 billion so far on the conflict. The other side of the story is Saudi Arabia, which finances anti-Assad groups in Syria. The Saudis do not want to be marginalized by Qatar; thus they too want to topple Assad and implant their own puppet government, one that would sign off on a pipeline deal and charge Qatar for running their pipes through to Nabucco.

Yes, I know that this is all very complicated.
But no matter how you slice it, there is absolutely no reason for the United States to be getting involved in this conflict.
If the U.S. does get involved, we will actually be helping al-Qaeda terrorists that behead mothers and their infants...

Al-Qaeda linked terrorists in Syria have beheaded all 24 Syrian passengers traveling from Tartus to Ras al-Ain in northeast of Syria, among them a mother and a 40-days old infant.

Gunmen from the terrorist Islamic State of Iraq and Levant stopped the bus on the road in Talkalakh and killed everyone before setting the bus on fire.

Is this really who we want to be "allied" with?
And of course once we strike Syria, the war could escalate into a full-blown conflict very easily.
If you believe that the Obama administration would never send U.S. troops into Syria, you are just being naive. In fact, according to Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School, the proposed authorization to use military force that has been sent to Congress would leave the door wide open for American "boots on the ground"...

The proposed AUMF focuses on Syrian WMD but is otherwise very broad. It authorizes the President to use any element of the U.S. Armed Forces and any method of force. It does not contain specific limits on targets – either in terms of the identity of the targets (e.g. the Syrian government, Syrian rebels, Hezbollah, Iran) or the geography of the targets. Its main limit comes on the purposes for which force can be used. Four points are worth making about these purposes. First, the proposed AUMF authorizes the President to use force “in connection with” the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war. (It does not limit the President’s use force to the territory of Syria, but rather says that the use of force must have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian conflict. Activities outside Syria can and certainly do have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war.). Second, the use of force must be designed to “prevent or deter the use or proliferation” of WMDs “within, to or from Syria” or (broader yet) to “protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.” Third, the proposed AUMF gives the President final interpretive authority to determine when these criteria are satisfied (“as he determines to be necessary and appropriate”). Fourth, the proposed AUMF contemplates no procedural restrictions on the President’s powers (such as a time limit).
I think this AUMF has much broader implications than Ilya Somin described. Some questions for Congress to ponder:
(1) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to take sides in the Syrian Civil War, or to attack Syrian rebels associated with al Qaeda, or to remove Assad from power? Yes, as long as the President determines that any of these entities has a (mere) connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and that the use of force against one of them would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons. It is very easy to imagine the President making such determinations with regard to Assad or one or more of the rebel groups.
(2) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to use force against Iran or Hezbollah, in Iran or Lebanon? Again, yes, as long as the President determines that Iran or Hezbollah has a (mere) a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and the use of force against Iran or Hezbollah would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons.

Would you like to send your own son or your own daughter to fight in Syria just so that a natural gas pipeline can be built?
What the United States should be doing in this situation is so obvious that even the five-year-old grandson of Nancy Pelosi can figure it out...

I'll tell you this story and then I really do have to go. My five-year-old grandson, as I was leaving San Francisco yesterday, he said to me, Mimi, my name, Mimi, war with Syria, are you yes war with Syria, no, war with Syria. And he's five years old. We're not talking about war; we're talking about action. Yes war with Syria, no with war in Syria. I said, 'Well, what do you think?' He said, 'I think no war.'

Unfortunately, his grandmother and most of our other insane "leaders" in Washington D.C. seem absolutely determined to take us to war.

In the end, how much American blood will be spilled over a stupid natural gas pipeline?

Related: 

NATO’s Energy Security Strategy: Break Russia’s control over European gas markets.

Obama to meet Putin during G20 summit in St Petersburg.

Obama to meet Putin during G20 summit in St Petersburg.(Ynet).

President Barack Obama will meet Russian President Vladimir Putin next week in some fashion during the G20 summit in St Petersburg, White House spokesman Jay Carney said on Monday. 

Obama and Putin have been at odds over Russia's decision to grant temporary asylum to Edward Snowden. In protest at this step and other differences, Obama recently canceled Moscow talks that had been planned with Putin ahead of the G20 summit. But Carney made clear the two leaders would meet in some way in St Petersburg since Putin is hosting the summit. (Reuters)


'Body Language'

Is the Pentagon Prepared for East Med Gas?

Is the Pentagon Prepared for East Med Gas?HT: PhantomReport.

Source: Commentary Mag
More good news out of the Eastern Mediterranean, as even more gas has been discovered in the Levant Basin between Israel and Cyprus. The last decade has seen new gas and oil fields discovered around the world, but the Levant Basin is special: It is close enough to major markets in Europe to make it easy both to produce and distribute. Eastern Mediterranean gas can bypass Russia, Iran, and Turkey—all sources of regional instability—and also need not transit choke points such as the Strait of Hormuz, the Bab al-Mandab, or the Suez Canal to get to market.

As Eastern Mediterranean gas development continues, and the region becomes increasing strategically important, it behooves the United States to plan ahead to ensure the safety not only of American personnel working in the region, but also of the energy infrastructure. To do so would not simply be to spend American resources to defend the flow of oil and gas to China, as the United States effectively does in the Persian Gulf, but rather to protect an energy corridor which undercuts and diminishes the leverage and income of American adversaries.


German scholar Niklas Anzinger highlights growing threats to the region in an essay he wrote for the American Enterprise Institute:

• First there’s Turkey: “After Noble Energy Inc. began drilling for oil and gas in the Eastern Mediterranean in September 2011, Turkey’s European Union Affairs Minister Egemen Bağış threatened to use military force against Cyprus. ‘This is what we have the navy for,’ he declared, adding, ‘We have trained our marines for this; we have equipped the navy for this. All options are on the table; anything can be done.’”
• Then there’s Russia: “In 1967, Moscow formed the 5th Operational Squadron in the Mediterranean to counterbalance the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the US Sixth Fleet. The 5th Operational Squadron remained in the region until 1992, when it withdrew after the Soviet Union’s fall. In May 2013, against the backdrop of the Syrian civil war, Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a new Russian taskforce comprised of 16 warships and support vessels to the Eastern Mediterranean.”
• Next there’s Lebanon: “While Kofi Annan, former secretary general of the United Nations, certified Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000, the countries’ maritime boundary and 330 square miles of territorial waters remain in dispute… Nabih Berri, speaker of the Lebanese parliament and a close ally to Hezbollah, said in September 2012 that ‘we will not compromise on any amount of water from our maritime borders and oil, not even a single cup.’”
• Hezbollah, of course, remains a particular problem: “During its 2006 war with Israel, Hezbollah crippled the Israeli warship INS Hanit, which was cruising eight to nine miles offshore, with an Iranian version of the Chinese C-802 missile… Hezbollah may also maintain an amphibious sabotage and coastal infiltration unit. Recruits may receive training in an IRGC underwater combat school in Bandar Abbas and in a camp near the Assi River in the northern Bekaa Valley.”

There’s much, much more, and the whole essay is worth reading. Too often, American military planners focus on the last conflict. There is no shortage of discussion about what resources are needed to counter Iranian ambitions, but too little strategic planning about what resources the United States might need to protect interests in the Eastern Mediterranean in the years to come.

Related: 

NATO’s Energy Security Strategy: Break Russia’s control over European gas markets.